Pages

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Krishna's harem

According to Michael Sudduth:

Krishna’s madhurya qualities are His human qualities that engender a deep sense of closeness and intimacy with Him (e.g., his playfulness as a child in Vrindavan, His friendship with Arjuna, flute playing cowherd, youthful dancer, His relationships with the gopis, His physical beauty, etc). This is the second part of the equation and equally essential in the bhakti tradition because one’s love for God manifests in varying degrees/modes of union with God.

In the lila of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Radharani was Krishna’s consort and the highest caliber devotee. She demonstrated unparalleled, pure love for Krishna. It is said that Krishna could not begin to fathom the depths of her love for Him so he appeared in this special combined incarnation to taste the highest levels of devotion to Himself.

Yes…well…another interpretation comes to mind. To my knowledge, Michael has burned through three marriages. From what I’ve heard, his current girlfriend is a former student.

So a playboy deity like Krishna is a logical patron god for someone with Michael’s lifestyle. In theological analysis, Michael is thinking with his joystick rather than his brain.

Comments such as these concerning Sudduth's recent conversion are downright shameful, and your behavior is quite embarrassing. I'm ashamed to have once followed this blog with interest. At least it is clear now (if it wasn't already) that the only things on offer here are intellectually irresponsible "arguments", ad hominem invective, and lessons on how to be a school-yard bully. Sad.

i) To begin with, Sudduth himself offered an autobiographical justification for his defection from the Christian faith. That's how he chose to frame the issue. His personal experience. Well, that cuts both ways. If that excuses him, that can also accuse him.

ii) In the process of rationalizing his syncretism, he is also trying to convince others. To promote apostasy.

iii) Finally, in my previous post on Sudduth I also rebutted his position on philosophical grounds. Funny how often commenters who complain about ad hominem hypocritically ignore the substantive objections. If you really cared about substance, you'd interact with my substantive objections.

You aren't in any position to know whether immorality was the reason of Sudduth's conversion, and pretending otherwise - even backing off to 'oh well this is just speculation' - is detrimental to your case.

Sudduth gave his reasons for his conversion. Why not analyze and criticize those? Why not do the same with the religion he converted to? You've got a thousand legitimate ways to criticize his views and (new) beliefs. Have at it.

When you dive for the petty armchair psychoanalysis like this, you're pretty much becoming the John Loftus of Christian apologetics. Do I really have to tell you that's not something to pursue?

"You aren't in any position to know whether immorality was the reason of Sudduth's conversion, and pretending otherwise - even backing off to 'oh well this is just speculation' - is detrimental to your case."

There's nothing wrong with speculating about his motives. He wouldn't be the first man to liberalize his theology to match his experience.

It's a working hypothesis. There are other possible explanations as well.

"Sudduth gave his reasons for his conversion."

Yes...an argument from experience. So he made it personal. Hence, his motives are fair game.

"Why not analyze and criticize those?"

I did.

"Why not do the same with the religion he converted to?"

I did.

"You've got a thousand legitimate ways to criticize his views and (new) beliefs. Have at it."

He justified his apostasy by appealing to some autobiographical anecdotes. I merely supplemented his biography with other potentially relevant dispositive factors.

There's nothing wrong with speculating about his motives. He wouldn't be the first man to liberalize his theology to match his experience.

No, there is something wrong with this move: it comes across as petty, and worse, desperate. Actually, it doesn't come across as petty - it IS petty.

Yes...an argument from experience. So he made it personal. Hence, his motives are fair game.

Let me guess, the logic is a little like this:

'Why did you convert, Sudduth?'"Well, I had an experience of Krishna and..."'Aha! Personal experience! Psychoanalyzing is fair game! I bet you're morally destitute.'

I did.

Really? Where? In your previous post where you brought up everything from the occult power of ouija board use as a teenager to anti-depressant use? Emotional immaturity? Your best 'criticisms' were to raise a few questions.

That wasn't analysis and criticism. That was the prelude to analysis and criticism, at best.

He justified his apostasy by appealing to some autobiographical anecdotes.

This sort of BS doesn't work when Loftus does it, and it won't work for you. You're making a bad move by engaging in what to any rational bystander, Christian or not, looks like some pretty lame mud-slinging and psychoanalyzing.

You know what religion Sudduth is embracing, you know what his arguments are. Why not focus your energy on those? You're feeding a bad Christian stereotype here, and just like with Loftus, it isn't even effective.

"Relationiship with the Gopis"?!?!?!?!?The Dr. says this is one of the endearing qualities of Krishna?!?!?!?!?Krishna's "relationship" with the Gopis is akin to saying the patrons of a strip joint have a "relationship" with the strippers. Except in Krishna's club he was the only voyeur...And we could go into the "come out to play with me" number he played at night with the married women of a town.Spiritual giant that Krishna represents - I fear the cynicism that Steve reflects about the situation with Dr Suddoths failed marriages and living with his student reflects the true nature of the evil of this whole situation. That is why I said yesterday that I just never run into anyone who reads the Gita, having grown up the Bible, and then prefers the Gita. For the most part instead they read a bit of the Bible, realize it is addressing their sin, and instead search for the more "holistic" package- that is that one can be religious/spiritual and still sin all they want. Thus the conscience is assuaged.Old story but always sad to see it happen. The story here may not be over - be praying for his repentence.

"In your previous post where you brought up everything from the occult power of ouija board use as a teenager to anti-depressant use? Emotional immaturity? Your best 'criticisms' were to raise a few questions. That wasn't analysis and criticism. That was the prelude to analysis and criticism, at best."

No, he also mentioned the inconsistency between Michael Sudduth's view and the exclusivism of Jesus and the Biblical authors, the lack of evidence for his form of Hinduism, and that Sudduth is assuming a "topdown perspective" that he hasn't demonstrated, for example. You also have to take into account the larger context in which Steve is posting, which includes this blog where he's discussed the evidence for Christianity in depth. When he mentions the lack of evidence for a Hindu view of Krishna, for example, he can assume that his readers will largely understand that there's significantly more evidence for Christianity and that he and others on this blog have already made that case.

It's also inaccurate for you to represent Steve's other comments as "Aha! Personal experience! Psychoanalyzing is fair game! I bet you're morally destitute." His "betting" involves suggesting potential explanations for Sudduth's conversion on the basis of some information he has about Sudduth's experiences with the paranormal, marriages, etc. He didn't just go to "I bet you're morally destitute" without any intervening steps.

I don't know as much about Sudduth as Steve and others who have posted here do. I wouldn't take Steve's approach on some of these matters. I think highly of Sudduth's work on subjects like paranormal phenomena, and he's been kind to me and helpful in my email exchanges with him in the past. But his departure from Christianity and his efforts to move others in the same direction are deplorable, and Steve's response is far more substantive than you've suggested. If you have a better response to offer, you're free to post it. I hope your relatively minor criticisms of Steve are accompanied by gratitude and encouragement for the good he does, which is far weightier.

Finally, I recommend everyone prays that the true sinister and malevolent character of the spirit or spirits Michael is encountering be manifested to him. There are many instances of people coming out of the occult, or the New Age, or Hinduism (etc.) who were finally convinced of the truth of Christianity and of the demonic nature of their former gods (avatars, spirit guides, ascended masters etc.) because the demons who were formerly friendly started harrassing them verbally (even physically), tempting them to commit suicide, and threatening them harm if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

"...I fear the cynicism that Steve reflects about the situation with Dr Suddoths [sic] failed marriages and living with his student reflects the true nature of the evil of this whole situation."

Does Steve really imply that MS is "living with" [an euphemism for engaging in Biblically illicit sex] his student?

Steve said...

"...Michael is thinking with his joystick rather than his brain. "

The phrase "thinking with his joystick" could imply he's thinking and making decisions based on his libido, but it doesn't necessarily imply that Michael is comitting fornication (or adultery if Michael is currently married to someone else). It's never good to spread factually inaccurate rumors. So, unless someone who's in the know concerning the actual situation says something explicit, let's not go beyond what has *actually* been said. Maybe Steve knows the facts. But my interpretation of Steve's words don't indicate one way or the other.